As predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court rightly struck down three out of four provisions of Arizona's immigration enforcement law because they violated the constitutional supremacy of the Congress to create immigration law. However, the high court let stand, for now, the provision that served as a model for Utah's immigration enforcement law. Explicit in the court's decision, however, is the worry that these laws could lead to abuses, a concern that we share.The principles involved in these cases are simple. The Constitution gives the federal government broad power to establish a uniform system of immigration laws, and its supremacy clause gives the feds authority to preempt state laws in this field. The wisdom of this policy is obvious, because it would make little sense for each of the 50 states to be free to set up their own systems of immigration.However, the provision of the Arizona law that the Supreme Court upheld is grounded on the idea that state and local law officers should assist federal immigration officers in enforcement. ...... But even at that, the high court expressed concern about whether officers would delay the release of detainees simply to verify immigration status. This could be unconstitutional if it occurred. However, the court's major concern was that the state courts have not yet had an opportunity to review this provision of the statute. The same would be true of Utah's law.In short, this ruling is not the final word. How the laws are implemented could make all the difference

Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia may have been on opposite ends of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Monday concerning Arizona's controversial illegal-immigration law, but their conclusions lead to the same place  the need for Congress and the president to tackle the issue in a meaningful way. ...

... State legislators, including those in Colorado who are champing at the bit to immerse states in the immigration enforcement business, would do well to read the carefully crafted opinion, which repeatedly emphasizes immigration policy is the purview of the federal government.And that makes it all the more compelling that Congress get its act together, find a way to stake out a piece of common ground and pass comprehensive immigration reform. ...

- Supremes gut Arizona law - Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial

Regular Gazette readers have heard it countless times: It is not a crime to be in the United States illegally. It is a federal civil infraction for which one should not be arrested. In a country with civil and criminal laws, the term "illegal" does not always mean "crime."It appears the Supreme Court of the United States concurs. ...

America's immigration mess has become messier with the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision Monday on Arizona's 2010 crackdown on illegal immigration, SB1070. ...

- No winners in SB 1070 ruling - Arizona Republic Editorial

... The heartbreaking human challenges created by illegal immigration have not eased in the two years since Arizona made headlines with this misguided law. Congress is no closer to enacting a bipartisan, comprehensive reform that would result in rational, enforceable immigration policies.Rather than a victory, the court's ruling was a stern directive that raises the stakes for Congress. ...

... Arizona has spent millions defending the law, and it seems a wonder why that defense should continue, especially since a law is already in place that, in combination with a depressed economy, has effectively diminished the presence of illegal immigrants hereabouts.That would be the Legal Arizona Workers Act, a 2008 measure that puts the issue of illegal immigration right where it belongs, in the laps - and on the laptops - of employers who seek to enhance their own profits while disregarding the real or imagined damage undocumented workers cause.With e-Verify in place, law enforcement can arrest the people who are truly a danger to society and let the workplace take care of those who came looking for jobs.But that all makes too much sense.

Share This Article

USER COMMENTS

Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account. See more about comments here.